Matrix Games Forums

Let me preface this post by stating that I love WAW...

However, I think the way that this game handles fleets retreating from ports is rediculous. Fleets that were in port in an conquered region are allowed to retreat into another friendly port (multiple sea zones away) THROUGH ENEMY FLEETS without even taking Op fire!

The only way it seems a fleet can be "surrounded" and destroyed is when it is forced to retreat through enemy occupied narrows (which often causes the destruction of the Soviet fleet Baltic fleet when Leningrad falls). If you can surround units on land and destroy them why doesn't the same rule apply at sea?

When conquering a land territory with an enemy fleet in port (say the WA fleets at Pearl Harbor) the enemy fleet should be moved into the sea zone adjacent to the port from which it came, even if this puts the fleet in contact with enemy ships. Watching an enemy fleet magically escape from a conquered port to a friendly port 3 or 4 sea zones away is frustrating and rediculous. I hope this issue is addressed in the next patch.

i agree.

while i think fleets can still retreat, they should draw opp-fire (esp. when they have to retreat thro' enemy fleet) and should suffer say -1 evasion and/ or -1 attack (if that matters) (as they will running like hell and wont bother to turn back and fight).
will be nice if that one got fixed in the next patch.

AN

they are also destroyed when out of range of a friendly port. I think the reason the leningrad fleets are destroyed in your example is because of this and not due to the narrows.

the perfect example of this is the pearl harbor surround. this was fixed of courxe and now the fleets retreat to the USA. take the usa before capturing hawaii and the fleets will retreat to the phillipines. however take hawaii, then take the usa and everything gets destroyed.

to make it more realistic, i think fuel costs (i.e. supplies in WAW terms) should be taken into consideration as well.

we all know that, if u havent planned ahead, it is a logistic nightmare to move ur fleets cos it cost u a lot of supplies for moving ur fleets more than one region. i think it is logical to make fleets retreat to friendly port only possible when:
1) the port is within range (as it is right now); and
2) the retreating fleets have the adequate supplies (or 1/2 the normal supplies required if u think its too harsh) to support such movement to the friendly port.

i understand if such rules are applied, it virtually means that no fleets are likely to make such retreat ... as u seldom have such piles of supplies, so may be using 1/2 of the normal supplies required will not make it too harsh.

btw, is it possible to capture enemy fleets if they cant escape? while i dont know whether it did happen in WWII (let me know if it did), i think the attacker should have a small chance to capture a portion of the fleets.

AN

I don't think the fleets should retreat to a port AT ALL. They should be moved into the sea zone next to the port the was just taken regardless of wether it is occupied by enemy forces or not. It is unrealistic and unfair to retreat them to friendly port. If they do retreat they should at least suffer op fire along the way.

I have to agree with this post. I understand that making the change in the patch was to stop the tactic of surround and take pearl harbor while ignoring the fleet in port. Probably perceived as "cheesy". But the problem here is that it is inconsistent with land forces. Any conceivable logic that can justify this behavior for sea forces is equally applicable to land forces. Basically this is one of those situations in games that you don't want to have, where you give a rule in one situation and then completely change it in another. Bad JuJu In fact, I would say that in the particular situation of Pearl Harbor, the change doesn't just remove a potentially cheesy tactic, it is actually an advantage for the US player. It makes sense for the US player to want to consolidate his/her forces, and the free retreat in essence gives the US player free supply in not having to move them. Yes, I know in that case you need to actually attack the fleet and if you don't knowing how it works, more fool you. However, my point was just to indicate that the ramifications of the way this work aren't as simple as it first appears.

Frankly I think there are a couple of solutions if it is felt that it is absolutely wrong to disallow surround and destroy. Note that when I suggest these options, I intend that they should apply to both land and sea force. And it does apply to land forces, since anything with a move of 2 or higher can potentially escape being surround just as logically as a fleet can.

1) Suggestion of original poster. Any forces retreating through enemy forces should take Op fire.
2) Don't destroy on a surround situation, instead damage the units that are retreating.
3) At the very least, make the movement use supply, just like any other movement does. And if there isn't enough movement, they stop at the furthest they can go as a group.

We always intended for fleets to get away without having to worry about "being surrounded" by enemy fleets in sea areas. Take a look at the rules for fleets retreating and you'll see that was our intent. Some of this code didn't work quite right and this also impacted the retreat out of port. During development we decided we didn't want fleets to surrender if there was a place for them to withdraw to (other than French and Italian fleets under Vichy and Italian surrender rules). This is a game with 3 month turns and although armies could be surrounded and forced to surrender, this was something much harder to do with regards to fleets. We're happy with the rules for fleet retreats as detailed in the manual and the recent clarifications, and only want to make sure they function as stated.

Having just lost the entire us pacific fleet on the first turn japan attacked the us(ie, before the us was allowed to move anything), i have to say the rules need changing joel. If you want it, i have the save.

Joel,

In my opinion if the current rule is the way you intended fleet retreats to work (from ports especially) then you have intentionally instituted a faulty rule. It makes no sense, is unfair to the attacker and it overpowers fleets. Either a fleet occupies a zone or it doesn't. If a fleet can retreat through an enemy fleet without penalty then why can't it advance through one without penalty? By your rule fleets should not be able to block fleets, period. After all it's a three month game turn, right? So my main attack fleet should be able use those 3 months to move right through any enemy's fleets without taking op fire or suffering interdiction, correct? So all fleets should act like subs?

If this is what you guys intended then it's pretty clear to me that you didn't think this one through. I really hope you address this issue in the future because it's a pretty big flaw in a very good game.

Hey Joel,

Yes, I realized that it had been changed to function as intended. I.e. was a "bug" fix and not a rule change. I was just disagreeing with you that it was a good rule I understand you feel its good as stands, and I didn't really expect to get anything changed, but figured nothing said, nothing changed.

How about the supply use idea though? Ultimately there are two issues I have with it. Inconsistency being one (and you've indicated that you are happy with the inconsistency, so c'este la vie). And getting something good for free in a situation that in theory should be "bad". I.e. free movement.

J.

The game is played in turns. There is no 'reaction'. With the exception of the initial Pearl Harbor attack, do you really think someone would sit and wait for the opponent to surround them with ships and not react? Granted it happens on land too, but units can be pinned down or too heavily engaged to react.

Even assuming fleets could be surrounded, these are LARGE sea areas. Having a single sub group, light fleet, or transport fleet in an area and assuming they can totally interdict enemy fleets is giving them far too much power. This also assumes that the enemy fleet is 'routing' and chooses to die to fleets FAR less powerful then them (rather than blowing them out of the water...).

This is an abstraction and nothing more. The ability to 'surround' and destroy enemy fleets like that is not something that belongs in a game of this scale. Now on land, whole army groups WERE bypassed and surrounded. It happened in 41, and it happened repeatedly in 43-45. But at sea, this is just not realistically possible in the time frame of the game (without satellite intel etc).

i think we got two camps, namely the "great escape everytime" camp and the "no great escape everytime" camp.

i think what bitterboy, jason and i want to say is (bitterboy, jason, pls. pt out if i got u wrong) while we dont expect the "no fleet retreat" scenario to happen everything, we are pretty annoyed to see that nothing really happen when we did get the port surrounded. it is esp. frustrating to see the "great escape" happen when u know that the retreating fleets are using some "free moves" that spend no extra supplies as it should be if they are moving tactically.

while i understand that someone may argue that the consumption of supplies in tactical movement is different from those in retreating ... but at least it should spend sth extra, right? they can't burning bamboo sticks as fuel to move across the ocean! i know land units do retreat as well (and sharing the same supply used in defense) but i guess u will never find a tank moving 12 regions on its own as what a light fleet did in its great escape.

besides, while we fully understand that the game is played in turns, i dont see any diff btn the actual situation for i) fleets that move "thro" an enemy fleet during tactical movement(that draw Opp-fire) and ii) retreating fleet move "thro" an enemy fleet (that draw NO Opp-fire). on the other hand, i think the enemy fleet in the latter will be even more alert to spot for any escaping fleets ... we know its a large sea areas, but if this argument stands, then the whole sea battle Opp-fire rule has to be reconsidered.

Having said all the above, i must say that i love this game! but just want to voice out with the intention to make it even better!!

AN

Joe,

I have two issues with your arguement. If in your arguement a unit can be pinned down on land then why can't it be pinned down or heavily engaged at sea? You say that a fleet wouldn't allow itself to be surrounded but do you think an enemy fleet on the attack would simply let the enemy escape.

I understand combat is an abstraction and I know the sea zones represent a large area but since you used a "realistic" arguement I'll give my counterpoint to your arguement. How close are these fleets when they engage, say two or three hundred miles for carriers and under 20 miles for surface ships? Close enough for radar? Close enough for scout planes to see them? So maybe a ship wouldn't get surrounded but it would probably be subject to attack while running away or moving out of port.

These "realistic" arguements could go on and on because the combat in WAW is not tactical, so I'll make what I think is the crucial point here. If fleets can interdict enemy fleets on the move why don't they interdict them when they retreat? If you take op fire and interdiction from moving through an enemy fleet when you move why don't you take the same penalites when retreating? Is retreating not movement?

All I'd like to see happen is that when a fleet is forced to retreat from a port it moves one sea zone and stops. If an enemy fleet is in the same sea zone that was adjacent to the vacated port then combat should be resolved there. Moving a fleet multiple zones to a safe port through enemy fleets without penalty is unfair. It is also inconsistent.

I think a good compromise in the case where a port area is attacked:

1) if the port is attacked via land, the fleet scrambles 1 fleet for every supply available to the ocean zone offshore. If there are enemy ships there, an extra sea battle takes place with all ships taking part (and maybe the ships coming from port have an interdiction effect(?)). the surviving ships of the losing side retreat to the next adjacent zone. If occupied, another combat occurs(negative modifiers for the retreating party?). If the attacked ships are close enough to a port to survive all that, well, they made good their escape.

2) if the port is attacked via sea, the fleet scrambles 1 fleet for every supply available to the ocean zone offshore and combats the enemy force there. warship targets warship and if the defenders have more warships than the attackers, the remainder may attack the transports. The victor is determined by the number of combat ships remaining at the end of the round. If the defender has more, the transports haul out and the assault is cancelled.

Additionally,

air attacks on ports should have greater effect. The ships i try to sink in port seem just as difficult to sink as ships on the sea.

These combined I think would add alot of realism to the game without adding much complexity. I can't think of a situation where one side would dare a major amphibious invasion in the presence of significant numbers of enemy combat vessels- whether they were in port or out in the immediate vicinity.

Additionally,

air attacks on ports should have greater effect. The ships i try to sink in port seem just as difficult to sink as ships on the sea.

I agree, a ship at anchor should be more vulnerable. however subs should be invulnerable while in port to model sub pens (or perhaps this is only in fortified ports).